I Hate Hleb wrote:
Yeah but that's because most of them are on the fecking dole and don't have work commitments!!![]()
![]()


Glasgow needs to be twinned with Liverpool !
I Hate Hleb wrote:
Yeah but that's because most of them are on the fecking dole and don't have work commitments!!![]()
![]()
I think the difference is that they did a cross section of 1000 people per country so not sure of the accuracy. Doubtful that Chelsea have a bigger fanbase than Arsenal (consistently third/fourth across most surveys) but I don't think anyone actually ASKS about celtic so very difficult to get figures!Clash wrote: Fair play to you there mate, you make some good points and have backed them up.
Im not sure I'd take those stats too seriously (anything that claims Chelsea have 135m fans is hard accept - or maybe I dont want to accept it) . I prefer to judge a big club by the amount of support that attends matches instead of a global figure whcih could just involve someone owning a beer mat. That doesnt mean I'm right to do judge it like that though.
The Rangers thing I think you have proved. Wrongly I think I assumed they had a similar sized support to Celtic but clearly not. I wouldnt have a problem accepting Celtic as a bigger club than Arsenal though. I remember they played a European game in the mid 80s at Parkhead which they won but a bottle was thrown on the pitch. UEFA made them replay the game at Old Trafford. They managed to fill the ground. I dont think Arsenal would have done that back then or now.
northbank123 wrote:Does anybody actually want them in the PL? And why? The novelty of having two new away trips would wear off when fans are expected to fuck off to that dump twice every year (at least). Who really gives a fuck about seeing whether or not Celtic or Rangers would compete with more money? I'd rather see Hadrian's Wall rebuilt in its entirety than let those two in the PL. And you might think that the rest of Scottish football is dire as it is but take the only two clubs with appeal out and it'll become worse than Welsh football. I've been to Edinburgh quite a few times over the last few years and for every person you can see wearing Hearts/Hibs merchandise there are at least 4 or 5 with Celtic/Rangers tops on.
Fair point, would certainly bring a better support than any of our friends from the North-West. Think the novelty would wear out after a while though and just no need for it in my view.augie wrote:northbank123 wrote:Does anybody actually want them in the PL? And why? The novelty of having two new away trips would wear off when fans are expected to fuck off to that dump twice every year (at least). Who really gives a fuck about seeing whether or not Celtic or Rangers would compete with more money? I'd rather see Hadrian's Wall rebuilt in its entirety than let those two in the PL. And you might think that the rest of Scottish football is dire as it is but take the only two clubs with appeal out and it'll become worse than Welsh football. I've been to Edinburgh quite a few times over the last few years and for every person you can see wearing Hearts/Hibs merchandise there are at least 4 or 5 with Celtic/Rangers tops on.
I'm guessing that if there was a reason why some fans would want them in, and I doubt if many do, but the crowds and atmosphere might be the main reason. We have all heard and agreed with fellow Gooners expressing happiness that the likes of blackburn were relegated partially on the basis that they only bring about two dozen fans to the groveWhat you have here is two proper big clubs (in terms of fanbase) and the atmosphere at those games would be electric
Anyway as I have said previously, I dont see it happening and am just playing devils advocate really
Chelsea have a depressingly large proportion of the African and American fanbase, in my experience. Nowhere near us, United or Liverpool globally (in Southern & Eastern Africa, Chelsea are bigger than them in West Africa and the US).Clash wrote:Fair play to you there mate, you make some good points and have backed them up.skizz_b wrote:
Sorry, thought you were referring to the 2000 final. I know a fair few people who were loath to go because of the rumoured attendance of other "firms".
Either way this whole argument comes down to what people's definition of a "big club" is. I prefer stats, so to attempt to sort this -
Research by Germany company SPORT+MARKT has revealed an estimation of how many supporters each club has around the world. A sample of 1,000 people from 34 countries has revealed the top 13 football teams with the most fans.
1 Manchester United (354m)
2 Barcelona (270m)
3 Real Madrid (174m)
4 Chelsea (135m)
5 Arsenal (113m)
6 AC Milan (99m)
7 Liverpool (71m)
8 Inter Milan (49m)
9 Bayern Munich (24m)
10 Juventus (20m)
Not even in the top 13 - Man City, the Scum and Newcastle filled those positions.
Or alternatively, let former Rangers director Hugh Adam take it away:
"Rangers' so called global appeal is a myth. When I was there, we did an exercise which involved asking 50,000 fans on the database to recommend a friend or a relative abroad.
"A big response was expected - some were even talking about getting 100,000 names - because everybody in Scotland seems to know somebody abroad.
"We got back 2,800 names and three-quarters of them didn’t know they had been nominated. It’s no surprise that Celtic are officially the best-supported football club in North America, with more official clubs than anybody else. The difference is the Irish connection.
"Many Irish people may support Manchester United, Liverpool or whoever, but they all - every one of them - have an affection for Celtic. And, of course, Celtic also have a great Scottish following.
"The difference is that, while the Irish all have an allegiance to Parkhead, there are millions of Scots who not only don’t support Rangers, but actively dislike them.
"Despite the claims of international appeal, Rangers are, essentially, a West of Scotland club. They talk of supporters’ buses leaving from all parts of Scotland, but if you look closely, you’ll see there aren’t many from each area and they are not all full."
Im not sure I'd take those stats too seriously (anything that claims Chelsea have 135m fans is hard accept - or maybe I dont want to accept it) . I prefer to judge a big club by the amount of support that attends matches instead of a global figure whcih could just involve someone owning a beer mat. That doesnt mean I'm right to do judge it like that though.
Don't know the official numbers but I'd be amazed if we had less than 25,000 out of the 34,000 crowd in Copenhagen in 1994. And I think we took something like 50-60,000 to Paris in 2006.Clash wrote:Bit selective there mateAlmunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
![]()
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
do you get to pick one out, or do they come giftwrapped ?augie wrote:We all know that fans of both clubs are entrenched their religous bigotry but it seems to be totally overlooked that Glasgow Celtic the club is not and never has been that way - many of celtic's best ever players were protestant (daglish for example) and it was only rangers that refused to sign catholics and that only changed when souness took charge![]()
I'm not really a religous guy tbh (II go once a year on xmas day and that is only for the kids) but do you really believe that catholic religon is a minority religon ?
Clash wrote:I Hate Hleb wrote:
Yeah but that's because most of them are on the fecking dole and don't have work commitments!!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Glasgow needs to be twinned with Liverpool !
StuartL wrote:do you get to pick one out, or do they come giftwrapped ?augie wrote:We all know that fans of both clubs are entrenched their religous bigotry but it seems to be totally overlooked that Glasgow Celtic the club is not and never has been that way - many of celtic's best ever players were protestant (daglish for example) and it was only rangers that refused to sign catholics and that only changed when souness took charge![]()
I'm not really a religous guy tbh (II go once a year on xmas day and that is only for the kids) but do you really believe that catholic religon is a minority religon ?
If you reread it I think TPM is referring to Catholics in countries where they form a minority, not in generalaugie wrote: I'm not really a religous guy tbh (II go once a year on xmas day and that is only for the kids) but do you really believe that catholic religon is a minority religon ?
I Hate Hleb wrote:StuartL wrote:do you get to pick one out, or do they come giftwrapped ?augie wrote:We all know that fans of both clubs are entrenched their religous bigotry but it seems to be totally overlooked that Glasgow Celtic the club is not and never has been that way - many of celtic's best ever players were protestant (daglish for example) and it was only rangers that refused to sign catholics and that only changed when souness took charge![]()
I'm not really a religous guy tbh (II go once a year on xmas day and that is only for the kids) but do you really believe that catholic religon is a minority religon ?
![]()
![]()
![]()
All together now....
Bald Jimmy Saville
You're just a bald Jimmy Saville
Bald Jimmy Saville
You're just a bald Jimmy Saville!!
![]()
![]()
![]()